Are the Gospels reliable?

Page 3 of 11<123456>Last »
March 3rd, 2018 at 9:16:44 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
you seemed to suggest that the people of that time and place didn't speak and know Greek.


Everything I've seen says Jesus might
have understood some Greek, like
a lot of people then, but didn't speak
it. It's fairly common to recognize
words but not speak them. Hebrews
would understand some Greek, just
like I understand some Spanish, but
they didn't speak it because it wasn't
their language. And they were all
illiterate, they had no reason to read
or write. 98% were illiterate.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
March 4th, 2018 at 1:13:34 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
I find that once an issue becomes polarized there simply are no neutral experts. None.
Now since religion is a matter of faith and choice I guess its like that tee shirt says: We all have to believe in something and I believe I'll have another beer".

Illiterate? In the last ten years I've met men who were illiterate but they still function in the world to a great degree. With all the hieroglyphics I just assume there had to be people able to read them. The spice trade spanned the globe passing thru a wide variety of regions. I can't imagine that languages did not travel as well. Its hard for merchant caravans to conduct business enroute without something more than sign language. Coins traveled, goods under seal traveled, merchants traveled, sailors traveled and I rather doubt that even hopeless peasants toiling in fields did not encounter things that were new and unusual. Timbuktu could not have been the center of commerce that it was if it were a monolingual conglomeration of peasants without any education.
March 4th, 2018 at 3:22:55 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
I think FrG needs to define what he means by 'reliable'.

Bob's hardened position, I have to think, is that he can hardly believe a word of the Bible. That actually is a reasonable position to take, not that I exactly agree with it. Of course he doesn't just take that position on the Gospels, he has to smash them, seems to be quite scared of them.

For me there is much that is fascinating to be found. Some of it is curious, such as the example I already gave, or take the example of Jesus cursing the fig tree, Mark 11:12–14 and 11:20–25, and also in Matthew. You have to wonder about this one; the story becomes "one of his miracles" but I feel like I can detect, between the lines, that the incident puzzled the Disciples. It wasn't the season for figs, it was related, so was there any reason to get angry at the poor tree? That's just an odd detail to include; if making it up from whole cloth, the story would definitely be that the tree should have had fruit and didn't. Something factual here has been preserved, it would seem.

Now, in Higher Criticism, they get into what the fig tree symbolized. A lot of guessing there. Jesus could have known destroying a fig tree would send a message to some faction.

You could just wonder if the whole story is made up by some later writer, but then the fascinating aspects disappear. Higher Criticism can most definitely make the fascination aspects disappear. So these things are a choice for anybody doing Bible study.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
March 4th, 2018 at 7:08:55 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3687
There is a lot out there on this subject.

http://personman.com/6-added-passages

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus

There is a lot to read there. The last two focus on the passages about the resurrection of Jesus and how the accounts differ between the four gospels.

The first links point out changes to the stories over time, how things were added later that were not in older written accounts.

Those are some changes people know about. There are an unknown number of unknown changes.

The nature of oral tradition, exaggeration, tall tales, and the decades that passed before things were written down are also significant.

I would like to know what is meant by "reliable" but all of this calls into question the historical accuracy of any given passage.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
March 4th, 2018 at 8:23:31 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
Quote: Dalex64
http://personman.com/6-added-passages


"I'm a former fundamentalist Christian pastor turned atheist" , this guy says about himself.

How many of these guys do we have to hear from? He first points out something that has been known for a long time: that the original ending of Mark was lost and someone replaced it with something else. He doesn't offer the long-standing explanation that Mark was written on a scroll and that it is thought the end of the scroll suffered from wear and tear and became separated and later lost, testifying to its being the oldest gospel. This guy has an agenda though, and makes it sound sinister. Perhaps he doesn't believe that is what happened to the original ending, but it is dishonest not to mention something he must know if he is such a scholar. I'll indulge in my own "perhaps" ... perhaps he hasn't earned any further consideration.

If it is true that you can't believe everything you read [uncritically], which I subscribe to and will include the Bible for that, it is also true that you can't believe everything on the internet. Or that such has no agenda.

If encountering this scholarship is an new exercise to some of you, it may come as a shock, enough that you may start to feel that Christianity has an element of dishonesty. Clearly this is likely to happen to a former Fundamentalist, and I can see why.

Such scholarly examination is not new, and it has not destroyed the Church, even if it is cold comfort to former Fundamentalists turned Atheist. As far as dishonesty, I would say the opposite needs to be examined. The early Church was not stupid. They canonized these four Gospels knowing full well that the latter ones do not just repeat the content of the oldest. It certainly would have been possible to make sure there was such conformity, and they did not do that. The four were laid out for us as they were and for what they were.

Now, I am not naive enough to assume no Church authority ever meddled with them either. Certainly the missing ending of Mark should not have been recreated. Elements supporting Doctrine may have been added elsewhere, etc., but I am not going to say this means there is nothing left but to discard the Bible!

PS: I have not looked at the other links and am not commenting on them.

PPS: the discussion that follows this "6 added passages" link is interesting. But also a warning, if you ask me, about how deep the deep end is should you decide to explore it. Guard your sanity.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
March 4th, 2018 at 10:28:02 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Jesus claims to be god in John,
but it's never mentioned in
Matthew Mark or Luke. Saying
your god is a pretty big deal,
why don't the first 3 gospels
know about it.

Because John was written long
after the first 3 and obviously he
made it up, or it was added to
the stories after the first 3 were
written.

This alone is enough throw the
whole thing out the window and
look for another source of the
Jesus story. Oops, that's right,
there isn't one. You're stuck with
this series of stories that all contradict
each other. Not me, I don't buy any
of it. There's a better chance Jack
bought magic beans and dealt with
a giant than any of the NT fairy tales
being true.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
March 4th, 2018 at 5:09:33 PM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke 1.1 Nuff said.
March 4th, 2018 at 5:10:43 PM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
Oh. I forgot. Get your heads outa your asses.
March 4th, 2018 at 6:00:28 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3687
That is the height of circular logic, quoting a source that is under discussion about its reliability as proof that it is reliable because it says so.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
March 4th, 2018 at 6:10:20 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote:
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses


And there lies the problem. Handed down
by word of mouth in stories that were
changed countless times in the decades
before they were written down.

How do we know they were changed? Look
at how different the 4 gospels are from
one another and they supposedly tell
the SAME STORY. There were scores
of gospels that didn't make the cut, each
a version of the same events. We do not
know, cannot know, what really happened
or was really said.

What we do know for a fact is that repeated
stories are never toned down, they are
always embellished in the other direction.
Amplified for effect, they were telling these
stories to get converts. The NT is useless,
good only for fooling children, the lazy,
and the ignorant.

Quote:
That is the height of circular logic, quoting a source that is under discussion about its reliability as proof that it is reliable because it says so.


FrG will do exactly the same thing, once he
gets done frantically searching for proof
that isn't there. He'lluse the gospels
themselves as proof of their reliability.
Xtions always do this, and I mean always.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
Page 3 of 11<123456>Last »